"In my own life in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this
country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job
at a big law firm for a career in public service, "...Michelle Obama

No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from
hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to
satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession.

Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing China for the
White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the
salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower: One-- paid for personally out of President's salary.
Jackie Kennedy: One
Rosaline Carter: One
Barbara Bush: One
Hilary Clinton: Three
Laura Bush: One
Michele Obama: Twenty-two

How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans
facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the
shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream
and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms
Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense
departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q.
Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President
and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President
and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa (Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $ 90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First
Lady)
7. $ 84,000 - Lilyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to
the First Lady)
8. $ 75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance
for the First Lady)
9. $ 70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Project
for the First Lady)
10. $ 65,000 - Burnough, Erinn (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
11. $ 64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B.(Deputy Director and Deputy Social
Secretary)
12. $ 62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and
Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $ 60,000 Fitz, Alan O.(Deputy Director of Adance and Trip Director
for the First Lady)
14. $ 57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to
the First Lady)
15. $ 52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press
Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $ 50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $ 45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of
Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $ 43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social
Office)
19. $ 40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of
Staff to the First Lady)
20. $ 36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social
Secretary)
21. $ 35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $ 35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of
Correspondence for the First Lady) Total $1,591,200 in annual salaries

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created
such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First
Lady's social life.

One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and
"First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air
Force One to Europe ...
. Copyright 2009 Canada Free HYPERLINK "http://press.com/"
Press.Com HYPERLINK "http://press.com/" <http://press.com/> HYPERLINK
"http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652"
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652HYPERLINK
"http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652"
<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652>
Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press had to publish this, perhaps because
America no longer has a free press and the USA media is too scared that they
might be considered racist or suffer at the hands of Obama.

Sorry America !

If you think you're too small to make a difference, you haven't been in bed
with a mosquito.

digg311

09-26-2012 2:50 PM

Garbage.
Jackie Kennedy had a staff of 40 in the East Wing. I could pull up more to refute this nonsense, but that one fact alone is enough to prove this is nothing more than yet another partisan distraction.

shawndoggy

09-26-2012 2:58 PM

"How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle "

Clearly Canadian, G.... everybody knows that all walmart and mcdonalds employees are part of the moocher 47% class....

At least your old assed e-mail forward post is crusty enough to have been factchecked.

Garbage.
Jackie Kennedy had a staff of 40 in the East Wing. I could pull up more to refute this nonsense, but that one fact alone is enough to prove this is nothing more than yet another partisan distraction.

So you are saying "it's cool. 1.6 million dollars to cater to the first lady is no problem"!LOL

All I can say is that she costs this country far too much. And maybe the others did also.

digg311

09-26-2012 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifetimewarranty
(Post 1785782)

Sorry - reception is bad here...adjusting my antennae.

Ha! Nice.

It does seem like a lot of money... and I haven't researched it enough to have an opinion on how wasteful it may be. My point was just that the list above is patently false and designed to mislead people. The Office of the First Lady has grown and changed with each presidency. In this case, Michelle obama seems to be doing a lot with the power that comes along with being the first lady. Much of that centered around her desire to fight and end childhood obesity. I can respect that.

grant_west

09-26-2012 4:21 PM

The SNOPE's Link says the Story is false, Humm? The E-mail say's she has a Staff of 22. The SNOPE's Link (that say's the story is false) Say's she has a staff of 24.

Where the story is "false" is that it says "she has a unprecedented number of staffers" Turns out Michelle Obama has as many as Laura Bush had by her Husbands 2nd term!

WOW so we are back to blaming Bush. I guess We cant ever expect to See this CHANGE Obama chanted and people voted for because of what Bush did!

Its good to know that while may people are cutting back from the things they used to spend money on lets say for 4 to 8 years ago the white house dosen't feel this way, As long as you don't go over what the last guy did your fine. WHAT A JOKE.

shawndoggy

09-26-2012 4:49 PM

unprecedented means "without precedent."

Since there is a precedent, "unprecedented" is false.

Quite honestly, with the role that's expected of a first lady I don't see anything out of line about this.

poser007

09-26-2012 5:25 PM

It wouldn't matter to me if Michelle was married to Bush # 2. 22 people at your beck and call? We should all be out raged. Why is this needed? While we are at it, don't you think it is odd that our public servants get paid for the rest of their living lives once out of office?

Doesn't anyone find that repulsive? These positions are public servant jobs. They are there to build up the country and keep things safe, secure and for the betterment of the country. It has become a huge entitlement for the bureaucrats. They get credit cards to buy lunch, office supplies and pretty much anything they want. They can hire whoever they want. It has gone from a serving position to a look at me position I am a senator or I am a congressman. Im sick of it

jeff_mn

09-27-2012 5:48 AM

I feel sorry for everyone who gets this worked up and feels this amount of personal attachment to this kind of stuff - on either side.

brettw

09-27-2012 7:05 AM

Another worthless b.s. thread. Thanks.

grant_west

09-27-2012 9:40 AM

I agree it is a distraction at best. Meanwell things like Iran and our $17 trillion dollar deficit go on un talk about. But it's hard to ignore the little things like this. Government overspending on almost everything. Thinking that we can spend our way out of the deficit . It doesn't work for you and I at home it doesn't work for business owners like myself but yet somehow the government doesn't get it I'm sick of things like Congress getting overpaid and then receiving that overpaid salary for life.
Like Chris Christie said "it doesn't matter how we got where we are today there's plenty of blame to spread around from both sides. what matters is how we move on from here. I just don't think the Obama has what it takes

fly135

09-27-2012 9:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant_west
(Post 1785978)

Like Chris Christie said "it doesn't matter how we got where we are today there's plenty of blame to spread around from both sides. what matters is how we move on from here. I just don't think the Obama has what it takes

I don't think anyone has what it takes. The fact is that nobody understands the concept of elementary school level math when it comes to the economy. How else can you have a 1/2 trillion dollar trade deficit and not think that it is depleting the economy?

The majority of govt borrowing is from Americans, so most of the borrowing does not replenish the economy. When we borrow from foreign entities it adds to the economy. When we borrow from ourselves, it doesn't. The solution to the spending deficit is to plug the leak. However, that isn't going to make for a great economy. We are too deep in the hole for that. But it does a lot to explain how we got where we are. Buying from other countries and putting more Americans out of work.

It's going to take a whole lot more than any president to get us out of this mess created over time by both parties and countless other folks in our country and others. Maybe Obama can help a little and maybe Romney can, but neither will come close to fixing it. I'm just voting for the guy that seems the least like a schmuck. imo, Romney seems like a bigger schmuck.

phatboypimp

09-27-2012 11:49 AM

In government as in business one thing remains true - revenue solves a lot of problems.

wake77

09-27-2012 1:30 PM

"Total $1,591,200 in annual salaries"

We spend that every time we use a tomahawk missle to blow up a mud hut or a 20.00 tent in Afghanistan or the middle east.

bftskir

09-27-2012 3:45 PM

I can't understand all of the hate spewed towards the first lady. The only thing that makes sense is racism.

pesos

09-27-2012 4:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bftskir
(Post 1786105)

I can't understand all of the hate spewed towards the first lady. The only thing that makes sense is racism.

^ this

wakeboardingdad

09-27-2012 6:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesos
(Post 1786126)

^ this

No, it is actually this: "In my own life in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "...Michelle Obama

It's not race, it is her arrogance. Please read her last sentence again and again and again. Why does someone say something like that? One reason. To tell everyone how great they are. Real people, performing real services for the good of real people do not think, much less openly speak, like this.

pesos

09-27-2012 7:08 PM

Jesus Christ on a crutch. THIS is why hating Michelle Obama is justified? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on WW, and hey, this is WW. And the OP is pretty stupid - taking a statement regarding her leaving law firm work for public service - nothing to do with later becoming the first lady.

And as you know, national and community service is near and dear to my heart. It is the reason that I breathe. And as Nicky said, it has become my life's work in so many ways. Like many people, when I was coming out of high school and going into college, I did what most working-class kids did -- I had to work. And I had to work all the time because I had to have enough money for books for the year, and I had to help out with tuition. I had to chip in.

So during my college years I had to do work-study in order to get through. And what I had to do to get through, I typed, I worked at a bindery, I did a whole bunch of babysitting and piano tutoring and dog training. I did a little bit of everything. (Laughter.)

And when I was coming up, volunteering and doing an internship seemed to be a luxury that a working-class kid couldn't afford, because ironically, you know, in order to do some of that service, you had to have somebody supporting you for the summer that you weren't working and you were doing something interesting. So I could never afford to do that.

And I didn't realize how much I had missed. I had some good experiences, but some of these wonderful internships and opportunities to work in community groups, I didn't have access to those. And more importantly, I felt guilty to even ask parents who were already working hard to let me take a summer or a semester off to do something like that. So oftentimes I never asked. I studied, I worked, I worked and I'd studied, and that's how I sort of developed my thinking of career.

And I went from college to law school to a big ol' fancy law firm where I was making more money than both of my parents combined. I thought I had arrived. I was working on the 47th floor of one of the largest buildings in the city of Chicago. And I thought, well, I must be doing okay.

But then several things happened over the course of my life in a year to make me stop and actually think for the first time about what I wanted. I lost my father. I lost one of my good friends to cancer suddenly. She was in her mid-20s when she died. And I thought that -- for the first time I had to think about life and the life that I was building for myself, and I had to ask myself whether, if I died tomorrow, would I want this to be my legacy, working in a corporate firm, working for big companies? And when I asked myself the question, the resounding answer was, absolutely not. This isn't what I want to leave behind, this isn't why I went to Princeton and Harvard, this isn't why I was doing what I was doing. I thought I had more to give.

So people were quite surprised when I told them at the firm that I was going to leave this big lucrative paycheck behind and a promising career, and go on to do something more service-oriented. They all told me to wait and to become a partner first, and then leave. And I was -- that was financially the better option, but I knew in my heart that I was making the right decision to leave then.

So I left my job at the firm and started to then think about what I wanted my life to become. And when I thought about the things that I cared about, the things that I was passionate about, service was always somewhere in there. I thought about the things that I did for enjoyment. They were always mentoring, working with other young people, trying to help them get to where I had -- I was to help them think about their lives differently. So I knew that service was always going to be a part of that passion. So my goal was to figure out how I could not do that in my spare time, but how I could make my work service.

So I started doing a bunch of crazy things: working in city government, and that's when -- after city government I left to start this wonderful organization in Chicago, Public Allies, which many of you know of, because it's one of the first model AmeriCorps national service programs. It was right when President Clinton got elected to office, and there was an infusion of new resources for wonderful innovative ideas, and Public Allies was an organization that would help 18- to 30-year-olds pursue careers in public service. And I helped to build that. And I had -- I was never happier in my life than when I was working to build Public Allies.

And for those of you who have committed your lives to careers in service, you probably know what I'm talking about. You probably understand that feeling that you get when you help somebody achieve their goals, when you help a group of young people learn more about themselves by working with others, when you hire young diverse people, and you see them grow and develop. There is nothing more fulfilling. It's an opportunity to put your faith into action in a way that regular jobs don't allow; to use your larger talents for the greater good. It felt really good.

And for many Americans, it may seem impossible to squeeze even more time out of the day and do more, because we all have busy lives, but I still strongly encourage people to think about volunteering and community service.

And people are doing it all over the place. Families are getting involved every day in their communities more and more in ways that are just inspiring, serving food at homeless shelters or giving time to their church or their mosque or their temple, or participating in walk-a-thons. I mean, there are so many ways, big and small, that people can and are engaging.

And for parents in particular, now that I have my own children, service is a great way to demonstrate values and to teach children firsthand what it means to think outside of themselves. And we've relied on service so much as a tool of teaching and education for our kids.

And when I talk to kids everywhere, I remind them that they're never too young to serve, that they're never too small to do something big, because that's the way that they learn what it means to make a lifelong commitment to service.

And volunteering as a family has a very lasting impact. In many ways this campaign has been a family-service initiative for us. Supporting Barack in this post has been just a wonderful way for our family to connect and grow and become stronger, because with whatever little sacrifice we give together, we're coming together even more as a unit.

So as we begin to think about what national service can be in this time, we've got to think about all these wonderful components; you know, what it means to the individual, to the family, to our children. So we're grateful for where we are today. I know I am.

And we wouldn't be here today without the bipartisan support for the Serve America Act. It's just beautiful to see this country and people of all walks of life, regardless of party, recognizing that this is a really good thing; that this is where patriotism begins.

So it was nice to see this Act pass by such an overwhelming amount of support. And it happened because of many of you laying that foundation, being able to help a set of programs grow, to show the impact that these programs can have on young people and on communities. That hard-core evidence helped us get to where we are.

And you all know what this bill has done. Because of this bill we were able to dramatically expand AmeriCorps from 75,000 positions a year to 250,000 by 2017, and focusing that service on the issues that are so important today: clean energy, education, health care, economic opportunities, and caring for our veterans. That's how this service is going to be targeted.

The bill is going to invest in service learning, a concept that now is a part of this culture, thanks to you. When I was coming up, no one knew what service learning was. And now it's a part of educational experiences throughout this nation, so more kids are going to have the opportunity to serve, not just those who can afford it. And that goes back to my story.

It is so important that young people, regardless of their race or their age or their financial ability, that they have a chance to serve; that it isn't a luxury just for wealthy kids but it's something that all kids can do. And we're seeing that through programs like YouthBuild and City Year and Public Allies and Teach for America, and we could go on and on. You go into these programs and you see kids, young people of all walks of life, serving together and learning together and growing together.

Read this article also ""For 2012, the marriage penalty is lower than prior years because of tax relief included in the Bush-era tax cuts. Without this provision being extended at year's end, the standard deduction will decrease in 2013, dropping to $9,900 from $11,900, according to H&R Block. "" http://www.cnbc.com/id/48898974

bftskir

09-30-2012 6:19 PM

I don't feel sorry for married couples where each is making more than 80k (160k+) they can pay more tax....as far as the 9900 from 11900...so they will not be able to hide/deduct 2000 and will have to pay tax on it....oooooooh they will suffer so much.

Laker1234

09-30-2012 7:43 PM

Every little bit helps. The scariest part for most of is the hyper inflation that is bound to set in with the weak dollar.

deltahoosier

10-02-2012 8:40 AM

bftskir the 60's are calling and they want you back. Look at the voting maps. It is all the people who are out of the big rich cities that are voting republican. They are not the rich. The rich people vote democrat. Democrats are the richest people in the world and they are using the useful idiots to keep propping up their share the wealth globally schemes.

Marriage penalty is bull crap and it is not people making 80k a year. I had to pay $1000 extra in taxes right away and I can tell you we were no where near that. Also single people should be taxed more if you think that one group should be taxed more. Single people are not likely to have families that ultimately keep your pyramid schemes (social security, medicare) going.

wake77

10-02-2012 4:04 PM

^The biggest crock of bull I have ever heard. Both parties have their fair share of wealthy people (Koch Bros., the Walton's, etc., etc.). "Share the wealth global schemes" is just some conspiracy theory kookiness concocted by you.

deltahoosier

10-03-2012 3:50 PM

Look at the body of evidence. What is democrats favorite saying? It is share the wealth. Look at most democrats and especially rich democrats view that they are children of the world and not just the USA. Look at the affection for the U.N. from the democrats. Look at the international treaties that try to tax the US directly. Treaty of the Sea, Kyoto and hard telling what else. Your memo regarding fair share of rich people does not even scratch the surface compared to the amount of rich democrats. Remember, you are stupid for being poor and being republican right? Where have I heard that one before? If we listened to you democrats, you would believe their are no such thing as rich democrats. Look up the number of the richest democrats in Congress. Last number I read was 70% of the richest are democrat. Sorry Jeremy, the democrat party you believe in so much does not work for you anymore. They have done nothing to protect American businesses. They have done nothing to protect American workers. If they did, they would be squarely against illegal immigration. Instead they support it fully. Why? Because it sends money directly to Mexico. It is their 3rd largest income stream. Why don't they pass laws that allow businesses to bring money back on shore? Because they know it is easy votes if they don't because they can blame corporations even though they themselves are heavily invested in the same corporations they are vested in. They know that majority of Americans are idiots when it comes to understanding business and money and are easy to manipulate. The masses only get simple things like someone bad, us good.

bftskir

10-06-2012 4:04 PM

OK so if 70% of the richest are democrats why don't the republicants want to tax those super rich democrats their fair share(more)? in order to bring more capital in to pay down debt?

Why when republicans are in power does the gov still grow? and practice deficit spending? And increase the national debt? why is that?

(Because the democrats are voting to tax ALL those rich people more, both Demo and Republicants making $250,000 or more a year).

deltahoosier

10-06-2012 10:17 PM

Because republicans know the difference from right and wrong. Taxing people for the sake of taxing them does nothing. It only hurts small businesses. That used to be where democrats focused their energy. Now they don't give a crap. Also, if you ever noticed, they always talk about taxing those evil rich people but never do. If they did, they would not campaign on it every single election. Carter did, Mondale did, Clinton did, Gore did, Kerry did, Obama did. Somehow along the way, those taxes never did materialize or they would not be able to campaign on it. Besides, you sound like yet another liberal that does not understand the difference between income tax and wealth. Those 70% of the richest do not get money from jobs, they get it from stock, land ownership and so on. I bet next you are going to ask about corporations that don't pay income taxes but fail to realize that corporations pay payroll taxes not income taxes. Income taxes have been a very small percentage of corporations taxes and has been moved to payroll taxes some time ago but democrats still campaign saying they don't pay their taxes. You guys are easy pickings. Vilify one side of the coin while knowing full well, they live on the other. They have the middle class bracketed well. Keep enough people poor so they will vote for them while living like kings off international money. That is the beauty of it. Once you live off of investments, you don't care where your money comes from.

Besides rich has changed. Before it was $250,000 it was $100,000 a year. It is always about the class warfare. It stopped being $100,000 just a few years ago when the democrats finally realized that all the democrats in the rich democrat cities were making $100,000 to even make it so they moved the number to $250k a year. Anyway, back to the point. Why does it matter that the government grows? Just because you are trying to deflect that it grew does not make it right. Also, it is not that it grew but how did it grow. For instance, if you spent money developing items or building roads or things like that, it not a horrible idea because those are expenditures that can be cut off. If the government adds new departments and creates new regulations that forces businesses out of the country then that is bad. You add long term expenditures and revenue killers that can take decades to overcome.

bftskir

10-07-2012 12:33 PM

you were trying to make a point?

Laker1234

10-07-2012 5:26 PM

I would venture to guess that the point is if the US is already beyond being bankrupt, why spend more?

fly135

10-08-2012 8:23 AM

Delta, so what you are saying is that corps stopped paying taxes on their earnings and now only pay taxes that are basically tied to the services of the worker? In other words they have managed to shift those taxes so that it's really a burden on the worker in terms of directly competing with wages and employment. And being a corp has nothing to do with payroll taxes. Even a self employed sole proprietor pays those same taxes.

You also seem to be saying that Obama campaigns to raise taxes on the highest earners but will never do so, and your claim seems to suggest that he never intended to. I would suggest the GOP call his bluff and offer to back his faux principles.

I'm not sure about your rich claim. I was never under the impression I was rich at $100K a year. Although back in the 90's I was able to bank a lot of cash making that even with higher taxes. It's because the cost of healthcare was about 20% of what it is now. Plus many other necessities were much cheaper.

deltahoosier

10-08-2012 10:24 AM

As recent as Al Gore they used $100k to be the bogey man. It may even been used by Kerry but not sure. At $100k you are filthy rich compared to people in the midwest. You make almost 3x what they make and live in a low tax state. At $100k a year you are almost in the top 10% of all wage earners.

What I am saying regarding Corporations is if you really study the issue, the amount of taxes overall has been consistent for 50 years. The difference is they switched where the tax revenue comes from. Is the issue the taxes collected? From the bitching I hear it is. If that is the issue then people are ignorant because the taxes are being collected. Matter of fact it is almost better since most corps are trying to locate offshore. Point is democrats use corporations as a bogey man as not paying taxes and that is not true.

On your argument about taxes competing with workers. You are almost healed. ALL TAXES ARE A COMPETITOR TO WORKERS!!!! The most expensive part of any operation is the workers. 10 workers in California costs a company from $100k to $150k per worker. 10 workers and you are out over a million dollars a year.You better move a lot of product. So for ever dollar you pay in taxes, the less money you have to hire a worker. Now take into account that the income tax code is designed to force businesses to reinvest their money into equipment and take loses on equipment, it is smarter to tax employees because the government will not collect taxes on income based on current tax codes.

As far as democrats not really raising taxes. Look no further than Obama keeping the Bush tax cuts.

wake77

10-08-2012 2:02 PM

^So basically you are saying that you are mad at the Dems for threatening to raise taxes on the high earners and not doing it? I thought raising taxes was the issue conservatives had with Obama???

deltahoosier

10-08-2012 6:43 PM

Jeremy,

I really don't understand how your mind works. You take the most straight forward things and completely try to twist the context. You are either completely intellectually dishonest or absolutely can not read for content.

What is being said is this: democrats are liars. That simple enough for you? Every election they say they need to raise income taxes on the rich know dang well they are making their millions on investment income which is capital gains at best if they even cash it in. The idiots keep lapping it up. They grab their so called pitchforks and torches and head to the streets of Oakland and chant down with corporations. Why? Because they buy the line of if we only tax the rich, you will get more free stuff or things will be cheaper or your life will get better. The idiots have no idea on cause and effect and what this all means. What the democrats do instead is raise regulations that end up making businesses move off shore. Does not matter to them. They are rich to begin with. They then get to continue to claim that the corporations are hogging the money off shore and living it up all while they drive them off shore and the middle class takes the brunt of it. Get a clue. Fly over country has turned Red for a Reason and it is not because they are the rich.

Final question. Why don't they make it mandatory to take finance classes in school? Easy answer. If people knew how it works, it would kill the democrat party.

I really don't understand how your mind works. You take the most straight forward things and completely try to twist the context. You are either completely intellectually dishonest or absolutely can not read for content.

What is being said is this: democrats are liars. That simple enough for you? Every election they say they need to raise income taxes on the rich know dang well they are making their millions on investment income which is capital gains at best if they even cash it in. The idiots keep lapping it up. They grab their so called pitchforks and torches and head to the streets of Oakland and chant down with corporations. Why? Because they buy the line of if we only tax the rich, you will get more free stuff or things will be cheaper or your life will get better. The idiots have no idea on cause and effect and what this all means. What the democrats do instead is raise regulations that end up making businesses move off shore. Does not matter to them. They are rich to begin with. They then get to continue to claim that the corporations are hogging the money off shore and living it up all while they drive them off shore and the middle class takes the brunt of it. Get a clue. Fly over country has turned Red for a Reason and it is not because they are the rich.

Final question. Why don't they make it mandatory to take finance classes in school? Easy answer. If people knew how it works, it would kill the democrat party.

This says one of two things about you: 1. You actually believe in your heart that the GOP never lies and is always straightforward with voters or 2. Your religious beliefs have you contending that the GOP is the party of Christ and Democrats are the party of Satan. Either one (or both) show how gullible you are in buying either party's crap and how clueless you are to the history of both parties. Both have plenty of skeletons in their closet and for you to act as though the GOP only does good for the country really isn't worth my time explaining to you the problems of that belief system. I don't think that you would listen at this point anyways, you are far too brainwashed. You will never hear me on any forum proclaiming that the democrat party is the perfect party and that I follow them tooth and nail no matter what they propose.

And take it from someone that lives in "fly over country". The reason it has turned red is the overall education level of these states (look at TN, AL, MS, KY, etc.) and evangelicals.

As far as "finance classes", it is mandatory at the school I teach (it's called Personal Finance). And many students take it in the colleges that are often demonized by the GOP.

deltahoosier

10-09-2012 9:15 AM

The context is your belief in the democrat party. I am not talking about the republicans. All politicians lie. We are talking about democrats at the moment. The so called "rich" Republicans are easy to predict. The money will flow to the path of least resistance and I do believe it when they say this is how to start businesses. I still believe most of the middle class is now Republican. The voting map pretty much shows it if you couple it with looking at median income and of course I grew up in it. I live there 20 years. Actually I would sat the education level in the midwest is very good. California has a huge budget for education and the facilities suck. Many campuses have trailers for petes sake. The state is focused on teaching liberalism and not math and science. The teachers get a manditory 40% of the general budget and the state is near last and is overwhelmingly democrat. Go figure.

Uh...in case you have not noticed, but you live on this forum proclaiming democrat party as being perfect nearly every day.

On the religious front, I don't really consider myself religious at all but I will not hesitate to defend Christianity against lies or misguided people but beyond that I don't think I ever bring up God in any conversations in person. I don't even go to church. My relationship with God is just that. My relationship. Now, since you brought it up for some reason, I will go there. You affiliation with the democrats seems to be strongly tied to the fact that they are anti religious. Hell, they BOOED GOD three times in their convention. As a supposed Catholic, which last you tried to explain to us is a religion that believes in God and supposedly cares for your spiritual well being, how can you even support a party that hates your God? You say you do not support your party in everything, but the body of work is against nearly everything in your faith but you still blindly follow them. How does that work?

Now if you look at it a what people perceive the biblical view, the bible speaks of one world government and one world church and the rise of the beast. I would say from the religious point, the democrat party as it is now been put together seems to move quite well with that plan. Look at all the treaties they propose, how the democrat party supports nearly every initiative that is anti religion, and is actively trying to move wealth the rest of the world. I would say giving the biblical incite to this, the democrat party will not stop their push to this. Is it predestination? I don't know. It is a troubling sign from the religious community.

The democrat party has switched quickly since around 2006 in it's need to gain a political difference from the Republican party. They used the war that the majority of democrats voted for to be that difference. The elected the most radical liberals to be in charge of the party in order to try and get back into power. Unfortunately those radicals are one worlders and anti God crowd. The US being the US is the type of people that choose up sides (like in sports) and defends their team no matter what regardless if they are are selling their soul (metaphorically speaking) and their values just for the sake of saying they were with the winning team. They will twist their values to match their side (even the catholics). Hell, there were Jews that helped kill the other Jews in the camps. Not going Hitler or anything but it is the radical example of people doing things against their values in the face of the truth. Trust me, I loved the fact we elected a black president but I did not want this black president. Call me racist or what ever, but I will not sell my values just so I can say I was on a winning team. I know many who did.

The reason the middle America states turned red is two fold. They are the middle class now. The democrat party has moved away from protecting them like back in the JFK days, to seeing more value in increasing their wealth and power globally. Keep moving wealth out which anyone who studies any sort of history knows that will enslave the masses. The people are lazy and do not mind. History is full of this behavior over and over. It is when the the enslavement means the freeloading people have to start working harder to compensate for when the real hard workers are broken down that it will matter. Then they will realize they are slaves again and rise up. Just read history. It will show you where we are heading. The people in the midwest can see this. They have wonderful insight. They see the wealth moving out and the democrats are trying to blame the Republicans saying because the are rich. Does not pass the sniff test. Richest in the world are democrats. Richest places in the country vote democrat. Democrats consistantly support the U.N. The president went on a world apology tour. The democrats are against Christianity (see all support for laws against it and see their convention). The democrats are trying to suck up to Iran and not talk to Israel. It adds up bud. I realize their is always more complexity to situations, but, you have to pass the first order fit in order worry about the subtle data.

deltahoosier

10-09-2012 9:20 AM

Also, your finance classes are basically simple and compound interest and how to manage checkbooks. I know I took those classes in high school and college as well. Ask yourself how much more time have the students been taught classical literature, rendition after rendition of English comp, art, music instead of science, logic, and actual economics? I train all sorts of kids out of college over the years and none of them know anything about 401k's or how money moves in a economy. They sure as hell know a ton about environmental studies.

wake77

10-09-2012 11:37 AM

^I personally believe in a well-rounded education (and I am a math teacher). Students involved in music, particularly ones that play instruments, typically do better in math.

And another thing, since you just scolded me for "twisting the context", is just because there were people "booing god" at the DNC does not mean to be a democrat you don't believe in god. In case you are blind to the real world, there are democrats that are strong in their faith, pro-life, etc., etc. There are also republicans that are atheist, pro-choice, ant-DADT, pacifistic, etc., etc. As far as religion and the government is concerned, they shouldn't be intertwined, period. Religion has no place in governing our country. Despite the GOP's attempt to rewrite US history, this country is founded on religious neutrality, where no religion has any more importance than another. Many of our country's "founding fathers" were deists, so it baffles me that I constantly hear that the founding fathers were christians.

bftskir

10-09-2012 4:00 PM

Dude we wanted ANYBODY BUT BUSH for god's sake.

bftskir

10-09-2012 4:09 PM

Exactly, just because your religion says abortion is wrong does not allow you to say it's wrong for a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, just because your religion says marriage is between a man and woman does not mean you should be able to say that two gays cannot get married and receive the benefits and detriments of marriage. Do you realize how many weddings would happen if gays were allowed to legally marry? do you know how much that alone would boost the economy? And if you don't want an abortion you don't have to get one if you don't want to marry another man you don't have to. But our constitution says all men are created equal and that they all have certain rights. Why not give all of the people their rights????

Laker1234

10-09-2012 4:39 PM

But couldn't you get a Civil Union or a Domestic Partnership? With abortion, Romney would like states to have that right to decide. What's wrong with that?

shawndoggy

10-09-2012 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker1234
(Post 1788694)

But couldn't you get a Civil Union or a Domestic Partnership? With abortion, Romney would like states to have that right to decide. What's wrong with that?

All couples (gay or straight) should get a civil union or domestic partnership. If they want to go to church and have their dillusional club of choice sprinkle marriage dust on the relationship, so be it. Government should not be in the "marriage as morality" business.

Re the "big A" to push it back to the states would take either a reversal of 40 years of precedent at the supreme court or a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would fail -- it's not a reasonable possibility. So we're back to the supremes reversing themselves. Nothing would be inherently wrong with that under our system of government, although personally I think it would delegitimize the supreme court as an institution.